Best post in the whole thread, wondered if anyone would bring these particular posts up...
You cannot prove those statements are true, nobody wants this, anywhere? Not even the narrower assertion that nobody in the democratic party wants this.

Republicans are planning to put all progressives in concentration camps and kill them.

Have you heard what Glenn Beck's being saying?

I posted a link.

What do you mean that's not Republican policy? What do you mean Republicans don't want to do that? How can you prove that they're not discussing it?

Abortion and birth control are forms of eugenics. Pelosi believes these in promoting these things - that they are necessary for the good of the country.

Nancy Pelosi advocates eugenics.

This is a fact.

Now, your assumptions about my "fear" and "irrational thought" (interestingly enough exactly what Obama has been saying about all those idiots who didn't vote Democrat in the mid-terms) are completely off base and unrelated to the discussion.

Prove Nancy Pelosi didn't say what she said and didn't mean what she said.

Abortion and birth control are forms of eugenics. Pelosi believes these in promoting these things - that they are necessary for the good of the country.

Nancy Pelosi advocates eugenics.

This is a fact.

Now, your assumptions about my "fear" and "irrational thought" (interestingly enough exactly what Obama has been saying about all those idiots who didn't vote Democrat in the mid-terms) are completely off base and unrelated to the discussion.

Prove Nancy Pelosi didn't say what she said and didn't mean what she said.

I made a response.

Abortion and birth control are not "forms of eugenics." That is nonsense. That is a very strange opinion.

Abortion is abortion, and birth control is birth control. Nancy Pelosi is not "advocating" either. There are dozens of reasons for wanting to fund them. In your out-of-context quote, the reason appears to be financial.

"Eugenics" has a MEANING. It is about weeding out undesirable heritable traits. Nancy Pelosi was not, and has never, and I imagine never will advocate these things.

But listen—when you see a picture of Nancy Pelosi and you get that sick feeling in your stomach, “Here is that woman who wants to impose eugenics on American citizens”, you don’t NEED that sick feeling. It is not true.

You seriously, truly can let it go. Democrats seriously don’t want to do this. You don’t have to like her. She’s still a stupid Democrat witch. But she’s not an uncivilised, evil harpy who admires Nazi Germany's genetics research.

Obviously eugenics as you understand it is different from eugenics as I understand it. And I really don't want to get into a debate over the meaning of a word with you, because that has proven to be futile in the past. But for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

If you are willing to stop making baseless, unfounded claims about my personal views and feelings on the matter and stick to the issues, we can have a discussion. However, that appears to be beyond your capabilities.

I provided a quote with facts to back it up. All you have done thus far is make assumptions about my motives and intent.

Obviously eugenics as you understand it is different from eugenics as I understand it. And I really don't want to get into a debate over the meaning of a word with you, because that has proven to be futile in the past. But for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

If you are willing to stop making baseless, unfounded claims about my personal views and feelings on the matter and stick to the issues, we can have a discussion. However, that appears to be beyond your capabilities.

I provided a quote with facts to back it up. All you have done thus far is make assumptions about my motives and intent.

It is a fact that Nancy Pelosi is not advocating eugenics.

She is not desiring that undesirable heritable traits be weeded out of the American gene pool. That is the meaning of "eugenics."

There is no point debating that point, I agree, because that is what eugenics means. If you want to argue about this, you have a definition of eugenics that is... not a genuine definition. That is the end of that.

Nancy Pelosi never has "advocated" abortion. Never. You can find another out-of-context quote, and I'm sure you will, by this point I'm counting on it.

But Ssenior Democrats are not interested in imposing eugenics on the American population.

If I believed something so disgusting and frightnening, I would be very relieved if someone showed me that I was wrong.

If it were true, I would be frightened and angry.

Im just trying to tell you, that if you believe this, and you are frightened and angry (I would be) then you dont need to be frightened and angry anymore, because it isnt true. There's no point being frightened and angry of something that no one is discussing. Let it go.

I can see you're not willing to discuss this without making it personal, so I have nothing further to say to you on the subject.

I'm simply trying to say that if ANYONE were to believe that a political party were discussing eugenics, than that anyone would have EVERY RIGHT to be frightened and angry.

How could ANYONE believe such a thing and not be frightened and angry?

It's impossible.

I'm not trying to "make it personal." I'm trying to make you see this: since it clearly isn't true (and it isn't, it's nonsense) IF YOU WERE frightened and angry (and I would be!) you don't need to be.

We're talking about a right wing Christian charity from America that is offering money to junkies to get themselves sterilised.

OK.

I'm absolutely prepared to say "This isn't eugenics, even though they're actually paying people to get sterilised, and my characterisation is absolutely wrong and I apologise unreservedly."

IF.

IF jazzguru and trumptman are willing to say "When Nancy Pelosi was talking about abortion a bit, that is not proof that senior Democrats are discussing eugenics and we apologise unreservedly."

Do we have a deal.

First, if you want to make a deal with jazzguru and trumptman you have to speak to them. I do not represent or speak for either of them. Second, why must your statement be conditional upon their statement?

First, if you want to make a deal with jazzguru and trumptman you have to speak to them. I do not represent or speak for either of them. Second, why must your statement be conditional upon their statement?

I'm addressing those posters now, not you. But thanks for bringing the subject up.

jazzguru and trumptman.

MJ1970 has reminded us of that right wing Christian charity from America that is offering money to junkies in London to get themselves sterilised.

OK. I called that "eugenics". Perhaps I was wrong to.

I'm absolutely prepared to say "This isn't eugenics, even though they're actually paying people to get sterilised, and my characterisation is absolutely wrong and I apologise unreservedly."

IF.

IF you are willing to say "When Nancy Pelosi was talking about abortion a bit, that is not proof that senior Democrats are discussing eugenics and we also apologise unreservedly."

Best post in the whole thread, wondered if anyone would bring these particular posts up...

If there is anything an outsider would see here it would have to be that neither side likes to "lose" or be seen as "losing". Good points are being made on either side, but they are mostly lost in over the top rhetoric.

Is there a defined and established eugenics program that can be pointed to and discussed, obviously not in the sense that MumboJumbo is defining it. Are there policies and other leanings that can be framed as leaning that way. Perhaps, perhaps not. But can it make for interesting conjecture and discussion. Certainly.

Mumbo, you state over and over that NOBODY wants eugenics. Obviously you know this is not true, or it would not even exist as a concept.

You cannot prove those statements are true, nobody wants this, anywhere? Not even the narrower assertion that nobody in the democratic party wants this. Do I believe this to be true, likely not. But when it comes to politics, I would not put it past anyone in power from any party to do anything that will keep them there. Not war, not lying, not stealing, not breaking the law, and not even eugenics, in whatever form.

Thanks for your patience.

I was absolutely serious in my reply to you, even though it may have seemed glib.

My point is this.

I'm sure it makes for "very interesting conjecture and discussion," as you suggest. I find the very suggestion a grotesque and offensive fiction, but I guess I can see clearly, being a long way, in a country that has had state-funded abortions since the Second World War and is not experiencing eugenics.

Another subject that might make for "very interesting conjecture and discussion" would be "Are senior Republicans discussing that all illegal immigrants be shot?" or "Are members of the Tea Party plotting a violent revolution that will involve shooting Democratic senators?"

Because all are just as likely, and there's just as much evidence.

All are comparable, revolting suggestions. All are equally likely. All are easy to utterly DISPROVE.

BUT NONE IS TRUE.

So what is the fu--ing point in the discussion in the first place unless it's simply to frighten people.

The discussion itself is disgusting. You can have it. I will be here to tell you it's disgusting.

I was absolutely serious in my reply to you, even though it may have seemed glib.

My point is this.

I'm sure it makes for "very interesting conjecture and discussion," as you suggest. I find the very suggestion a grotesque and offensive fiction, but I guess I can see clearly, being a long way, in a country that has had state-funded abortions since the Second World War and is not experiencing eugenics.

Another subject that might make for "very interesting conjecture and discussion" would be "Are senior Republicans discussing that all illegal immigrants be shot?" or "Are members of the Tea Party plotting a violent revolution that will involve shooting Democratic senators?"

Ok, we can agree that eugenics is grotesque and offensive. If someone brings up the subject you get a lot of discussion that can be quite interesting and frank. Or you can get something else. Then you start to narrow your statements. Considerably. You start with senior democrats then you expand to everyone in previous statements. You still have not addressed that aspect. I assume you mean some people in your limited scope (senior democrats only) are not doing this. Even still, you cannot say with total assurance a person is not thinking or is thinking any given thing.

Quote:

Because all are just as likely, and there's just as much evidence.

All are comparable, revolting suggestions. All are equally likely. All are easy to utterly DISPROVE.

BUT NONE IS TRUE.

So what is the fu--ing point in the discussion in the first place unless it's simply to frighten people.

The discussion itself is disgusting. You can have it. I will be here to tell you it's disgusting.

Senior democrats are not discussing eugenics.

not my discussion. Just reading and responding to some inconstancies in your arguments. I have already responded with my opinion on whether or not I believe the eugenics is being discussed.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

But Noah, the whole discussion is moot. This, I think is the nub of your argument, and it is absolutely correct:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Even still, you cannot say with total assurance a person is not thinking or is thinking any given thing.

Absolutely.

We cannot say with total assurance that senior Republicans are not discussing putting progressives into concentration camps, either.

So why bother with either discussion?

What is the point?

We cannot say with total assurance that senior Democrats are not discussing the abolition of paint.

Since there is no evidence for any of these things, what on earth do we have to gain by the discussion?

My conjecture is this.

There is no evidence that senior Democrats are discussing eugenics. Absolutely none.

So why are we having the discussion?

Because people seed the idea on forums like this one. And others, who are frightened and anxious about the state of their country, believe it. And they discuss it.

But the idea originates from unscrupulous, cowardly bastards who orchestrate anxious people's fears. They do that to disperse grotesque lies because they want to win on election day and they don't give a damn if the nation's political conversation is damaged.

You might start a thread a week before election arguing that if the Left loses, for example, they will, say, respond by descending into violence brought about by mental health issues.

I keep reading the OP and it just seems to make more and more sense as the PO "progressives" continue to post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

The key point to remember is this, if you thought they were vile, bitter, nasty, ridiculously hypocritical, self-centered and absorbed, and finally a bit prone to authoritarian and violent solutions before then get ready because you'll now see that was just the tip of the iceberg

Apparently, for them it is not enough to disagree with someone, explain why they disagree, and leave it at that.

To them it is vitally important that you accept their point of view and admit you are wrong. And if you refuse to comply with their demands, they proceed to attack your credibility, character, etc.

Even if your point of view - while different from theirs - leads to the same result, that is not enough. You must think as they do. You must feel as they do. You must do everything you do for the same reasons they do.

For example, even though I believe humans are not the primary cause of climate change, and that climate change is not necessarily a bad thing, I have frequently expressed my desire to do everything I can within my means and ability to be environmentally responsible and conserve resources.

But that is not enough for them. I must believe that humans are destroying the planet as they do.

But Noah, the whole discussion is moot. This, I think is the nub of your argument, and it is absolutely correct:

Absolutely.

We cannot say with total assurance that senior Republicans are not discussing putting progressives into concentration camps, either.

So why bother with either discussion?

What is the point?

We cannot say with total assurance that senior Democrats are not discussing the abolition of paint.

Since there is no evidence for any of these things, what on earth do we have to gain by the discussion?

My conjecture is this.

There is no evidence that senior Democrats are discussing eugenics. Absolutely none.

So why are we having the discussion?

Because people seed the idea on forums like this one. And others, who are frightened and anxious about the state of their country, believe it. And they discuss it.

But the idea originates from unscrupulous, cowardly bastards who orchestrate anxious people's fears. They do that to disperse grotesque lies because they want to win on election day and they don't give a damn if the nation's political conversation is damaged.

You might start a thread a week before election arguing that if the Left loses, for example, they will, say, respond by descending into violence brought about by mental health issues.

For example.

Or you might have whole threads talking about how "wingers" are violent nut jobs who are looking to shoot those who they are opposed to and are clinging to their religion and guns rather than being involved in the process. However, for some reason this particular subject really sets you off and that one gets a wink and a nod.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Also how are you determining these dates and what sort of delusional psychosis puts you above the word of the board moderator himself?

You go to Members List and look up each person. They each have their join dates. If the person is a current member, all you have to do is look to the left side of the post to determine this.

tm your ancient age is showing.

The moderator only points out that the IP address as Hassan.

Quote:

Every device connected to the public Internet is assigned a unique number known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address. IP addresses consist of four numbers separated by periods (also called a 'dotted-quad') and look something like 127.0.0.1.

Two or more people can share the same computer. Could be that Hassan and MJ work at an Apple Store and they post from one of the store's computers.

You might ask jg why it was necessary to go back to lundy's 02-28-2010 in a thread that ended 03-28-2010. If there are questions whether MJ is the same person and that MJ should be banned, let the moderator make that determination.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Check the join dates for MJ and Hassan. MJ preceded Hassan. Hassan was banned not MJ. Whether they are the same persons has yet to be determined. MJ has been a good boy here--hasn't been banned. You can still answer the question

Hey FT, you don't need to accuse the board moderator of deception anymore.

This is called a confession.

Also regardless of what he claims, at least three of those accounts are his. One was the banned account. The other one is an account claimed to be created because VB ate the old one. It lists the location as London, the same location. Perhaps he forgot it because VB didn't eat the account but some fine wine did instead.

The third account has oops on the end and was created to send off some quick PM's before being banned again.

He also PM'ed me and was banned under the account Internet Nickname which is a fourth account.

It doesn't really matter to me. I wouldn't ban anyone here. I only note it because he assigns some significance to banning and throws it in other people's faces. It's sort of strange that a guy who's been banned four times from one place thinks being banned one place, one time means anything.

SORRY FOR THE MULTIPLE POST---CATCHING UP IS SO HARD TO DO.

When people own the toys, they can play with them as they see fit. It doesn't give any credence to claims. Considering his political view this is even more odd because outside these forums I know he would never try to claim some person is right because they have the biggest house, the fastest car, or because they own anything or have any amount of money. So I have to note the strange and insane hypocrisy here.

Now back to those insane leftists and their desire to murder all Republicans to prevent them from being overwhelmed by the unwashed masses.

Thanks for the info. Doesn't matter to me why anyone here was banned. You can always use the ignore option.

I didn't accuse the lundy, a board moderator of any deception---more of putting pointing fingers, obfuscation...?

Most of the time Hassan comes up is when someone accuses MJ of being banned first. I don't recollect MJ being the instigator of slinging whose been banned.

Need to quit work so I can spend more time on PO---missing time here and trying to catch up really sucks.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey